Post by beatlies on Oct 3, 2007 8:06:15 GMT -5

Some basics about Beatle Paul, to begin with a summing up:

1) From August 1966 on to the present day, Beatles member Paul McCartney (real, full name: James Paul McCartney) is markedly different in physical appearance and voice than he was at any time before. There are persistent differences that go beyond what is possible with makeup or plastic surgery, and indicate that a different individual(s) has taken his place, falsely and permanently assuming the identity of James Paul McCartney. The physical proof is in the film, video, photos and audio of McCartney before and after this key 1966 time period.

2) The "real" Paul McCartney has apparently not appeared in public since September 1966, under his real name/identity, not even for a brief appearance (some who maintain that he was imposter-replaced have differences of opinion on this issue).The reason for Paul McCartney's disappearance and replacement with one or more imposters remains, to the public, uncertain to this day.

3) There are many "clues" left by the Beatles and their managers/handlers/entourage, telling us that Paul McCartney was replaced with an imposter, in the form of messages and coded messages in post-Sep. 1966 song lyrics, visuals on album covers, illustrations, photos and cartoons, backwards audio messages, word references and encryptions, coded signals in Beatles-related movies, TV and public appearances etc.

4) These clues first appear in 1966 but it was not until May of 1969 that the general public became aware of them, when the mass media began the "Paul is Dead" discussion of clues and possible death scenarios of Paul, with PID proponents sometimes mentioning 1966 as the likely year of the event and initial cover-up. The real name of the man impostering Paul McCartney was said to be "William Campbell" or "Billy Shears." When radio shows and magazines asked questions of Beatles members and their inner circle at this time, they all denied the rumor.

5) There is circumstantial evidence for the imposter replacement of Paul McCartney as well: a strange, corresponding "Black Hole" period from September through December 1966 in the Beatles timeline when very few, if any, public appearances were made by any Beatles members. During this time, rumors circulated that Paul had been in a severe car accident, and that the Beatles were about to break up.

"Paul" surfaced in December looking and sounding quite different, and this is when all the Beatles initially transformed their look from the former "moptop" style to the Sgt. Pepper-era "psychedelic" older-looking, facial hair appearance.

The "New Paul" also had mental changes to go with his physical ones: a more dominant, assertive personality, politics that seemed to swing toward the right/political apathy from his previous stance (judging by interview statements), a promotion of LSD use on national TV, a shift in girlfriends, changes in his bass guitar playing and performance style, changes in hobbies and interests etc.

6) Paul McCartney is today perhaps the most "well-known" case of alleged celebrity imposter fraud, although most people still have heard little-to-nothing of the rumor and supporting facts, beyond the "Paul is Dead" legend and maybe a few album clues.The general possibility of celebrity doubles and imposters seems a fantastic, unlikely story to most, mainly because of the necessary collusion/collaboration on the part of governments, police, media, the press, academics, family and friends, "the powers that be" etc. that would be required for such hoaxes to go on without being exposed. In other words, it implies that the public is being lied to in an extremely large and "Orwellian" manner, on a daily basis.

*******

Please add anything to this list that you feel that I've missed or needs correction.

A smoking gun for the world: "Faul" the McCartney Imposter caught on film unawares with his fake plastic ear missing a piece.

Post by The Mask on Oct 3, 2007 10:04:30 GMT -5

Very well presented beatlies. I don't have much to add except for maybe that the rumour of Paul's death starting becoming available to the public before October 1969. (The fall of '69 is when the "Paul is dead" hysteria started.) Some think that the public had news about Paul's demise before this, around the fall of 1966 and that word was spreading among the people. Rather than risk having the truth come out through word of mouth, the powers that be came up with a story that was made to appear ridiculous so that noone would believe it. They focused on the fact that "Paul" was still alive, i.e. can't you see? rather than focus on the fact that people were saying that the guy from December of 1966 on was NOT the real Paul McCartney. They also made the story sound silly. For instance, Paul wrecked his car looking at a meter maid, or, Paul's double was found through a look-a-like contest, etc.

Post by Nanabird on Oct 3, 2007 12:29:40 GMT -5

My forum is affiliated with another PID/PWR ( Paul is Dead/ Replaced ) Forum. This forum was called 60IF, but it's now called TKIN ( The King is Naked ). It is devoted to the fact that Paul McCartney & Brian Epstein died in 1966. They both were replaced by imposters. Brian's imposter was "killed off " in 1967. What actually happened to that man is anyone's guess.

These comparisons were done by a VERY dedicated researcher in that forum:

Brian vs. Frian ( fake Brian )>

This shows how they merged the two men to make Paul's image on the White Album poster>

Hand comparisons>

Various Paul vs. Faul comparisons:

Look at how SWOLLEN Faul's cheeks are in the second photo! That is because they were injected with underskin filler so that he would better resemble Paul !

Post by beatlies on Oct 3, 2007 13:09:24 GMT -5

Thank you for the great set of photos, mommybird, and welcome to the forum.

To expand a bit on my original post, regarding a scientific criteria for determing the presence of a doppleganger:

There are some physiological aspects that cannot be created with plastic surgery, not yet anyway. These include,

---Eye distance, the distance between one's eyes.

---The shape of the skull, and its size (head shape and size).

The Paul McCartney imposter fails on both these counts.

The real James Paul McCartney (JPM) had notably wide-spaced eyes. The imposter, Faux-Paul (Faul) has a narrower distance between his eyes. This is clear after examining and comparing a large number of Faul and JPM photos.

And Faul's head is larger, both horizontally and vertically, than JPM's.

On one occasion (see photo above in my first post) Faul, with wife Linda, was caught on film wearing an obviously fake ear, with a wedge missing. Ears are unique identifiers for a person, and it is necessary for a doppleganger to hide or disguise his or her ears in some way.

Faul also appears to be taller and have longer legs, and differently shaped feet, than JPM's.

And as Mommybird wrote, photo doctoring and retouching has taken place to make Faul look more like the original, real Paul.This is a chilling, proven fact.

Faul does a convincing speaking and singing voice impersonation of Paul, but listen carefully and you can tell that the real Paul's voice was lower register, deeper, and had more resonance and vibrato than Faul's voice. In short, Faul's singing voice is higher and thinner than JPM's, and his Liverpool accent is noticeably less thick and consistent than JPM's.

Some audio sonograms have shown a different "voice fingerprint"for Faul vs. JPM, establishing that he is a different person.

Faul's apparent songwriting talent can be explained by the employment of ghostwriters.

Post by J Gimmysum Truth on Oct 3, 2007 13:55:27 GMT -5

This is the only error in your good summary. Mass public consciousness in America did not arise until October/November 1969.

In May 1969, Terry Knight released the PID song "Saint Paul," which was published under MacLen, indicating the involvement of John Lennon and/or "PAUL MCCARTNEY". The song was a regional hit in Detroit, but was only described as "mysterious" in contemporary press accounts, which did not mention "Paul is dead."

4) These clues first appear in 1966 but it was not until May of 1969 that the general public became aware of them, when the mass media began the "Paul is Dead" discussion of clues and possible death scenarios of Paul,

Post by beatlies on Oct 3, 2007 14:58:08 GMT -5

admin said:

This is the only error in your good summary. Mass public consciousness in America did not arise until October/November 1969.

In May 1969, Terry Knight released the PID song "Saint Paul," which was published under MacLen, indicating the involvement of John Lennon and/or "PAUL MCCARTNEY". The song was a regional hit in Detroit, but was only described as "mysterious" in contemporary press accounts, which did not mention "Paul is dead."

4) These clues first appear in 1966 but it was not until May of 1969 that the general public became aware of them, when the mass media began the "Paul is Dead" discussion of clues and possible death scenarios of Paul,

Yes, I hesitated writing that, because I was thinking of the Terry Knight release "Saint Paul," that happened in May of 1969, but wasn't sure if it had any "Paul is Dead" type of rumor effect on a segment of the public at that time.

Post by slimyslug on Oct 3, 2007 18:45:21 GMT -5

The "Paul is dead" rumor had been heard in some of the American mid-west as early as May, 1969,but there was kind of a nation-wide sweep of awareness around the date of October 20th of that year; which was certainly bolstered when WABC's Roby Younge discussed the matter. If nothing else, it demonstrated how quickly word of an "underground" story could spread coast to coast. Essentially the entire nation was covered in four days.Believe it or not, the Terry Knight record didn't really do the job, even though we'd heard it. Nobody knewwhat it was trying to say. It was the discussion of clues that people had found on the albumcovers that really energized the rumor.

Post by beatlies on Oct 5, 2007 0:55:41 GMT -5

slimyslug said:

The "Paul is dead" rumor had been heard in some of the American mid-west as early as May, 1969,but there was kind of a nation-wide sweep of awareness around the date of October 20th of that year; which was certainly bolstered when WABC's Roby Younge discussed the matter. If nothing else, it demonstrated how quickly word of an "underground" story could spread coast to coast. Essentially the entire nation was covered in four days.Believe it or not, the Terry Knight record didn't really do the job, even though we'd heard it. Nobody knewwhat it was trying to say. It was the discussion of clues that people had found on the albumcovers that really energized the rumor.

Do you know if there was a phrase "Dylan is Dead" to go with the Bob Dylan "motorcycle accident" death rumor? This would have started in 1966 with news of the supposed accident and Dylan's sudden, complete disappearance from public view. If so, the expression "Dylan is Dead" would have preceded the expression "Paul is Dead" as a common phrase, at least among the hip, young crowd. I've seen this "Dylan is Dead" phrasementioned on the internet, by those who remember it from the time.

Then there was TIME magazine's 1966 "Is God Dead?" cover, which brought Nietzsche's expression "God is Dead" back into public parlance. This was before Paul McCartney disappeared and was replaced later in that year.

Post by slimyslug on Oct 5, 2007 9:39:43 GMT -5

Wow, you just blew my mind! (Haven't used that one in a while. ;D)No one I knew at the time ever mentioned "Dylan is Dead", but what you said about the TIME magazine cover, which I remember, of course, made me think; for this reason: We all know the games Illuminati play (I presume.)If Paul was supposed to be playing the role of Osiris, the "god" numero uno, who was killed by Seth, and Time asked the question "Is God dead?"

then maybe it was another way of asking "Is Paul dead?" to those "in the know". Of course, the Time magazine was the April 8th edition, just in time for Easter, if memory serves. And the Sgt Pepper drum suggests a later date for Paul's death, so probably it's just a coincidence, but then,some say there are "no coincidences".

Post by beatlies on Oct 5, 2007 10:09:41 GMT -5

slimyslug said:

Wow, you just blew my mind! (Haven't used that one in a while. ;D)No one I knew at the time ever mentioned "Dylan is Dead", but what you said about the TIME magazine cover, which I remember, of course, made me think; for this reason: We all know the games Illuminati play (I presume.)If Paul was supposed to be playing the role of Osiris, the "god" numero uno, who was killed by Seth, and Time asked the question "Is God dead?"

then maybe it was another way of asking "Is Paul dead?" to those "in the know". Of course, the Time magazine was the April 8th edition, just in time for Easter, if memory serves. And the Sgt Pepper drum suggests a later date for Paul's death, so probably it's just a coincidence, but then,some say there are "no coincidences".

A few other points on this in the cross-media clue matirx:

In Rosemary's Baby (1968), Rosemary sees a copy of the April 8 "Is God Dead?" TIME magazine in the waiting room of Dr. Sapirstein (Ralph Bellamy). A scene early in film has Rosemary lying in bed in her Dakota apartment holding up a New York Times with a full page illlustration showing a Beatles-like band with three members. In the film's storyline, the date for her seeing that TIME in the waiting room would have been June 1966.An earlier scene, set in Christmastime, December 1965, has Rosemary sitting by the fountain of the TIME-LIFE building on Sixth Avenue, looking up at what seems to be a low-flying US military helicopter (it ain't Santa Claus).

If you follow the link you provided, which includes the cover story text, you can find an excerpt of an Atlanta student paper's "obituary" for God, that is dated "November 9." As in "9-11" IONEIX HE ^ DIE . The "obituary" describes one term for God as being "He that causes to be" .........